"Who are you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"
Groucho Marx

Good find - thanks.

Bring on the idiots, who chose to believe, some 'perfeckkly logickal" explanation for WTC 7's collapse OTHER, than controlled demolition.....anybody??? (these people are called morons, dear...)
Fuck us not with masturbation or unconsciousness......

didn't they already publicly admit to "pulling it down" after some offices caught fire (which of course is a pretty lame excuse)?

I guess destroying support beams, drilling holes into the ones that remain, and then sneaking loads of a top secret new explosives(that doesn't make any noise when they go off) into the building, without ANYONE noticing, is a "perfeckkly logickal" explanation isn't it??

"didn't they already publicly admit to "pulling it down" after some offices caught fire (which of course is a pretty lame excuse)?"

K. Just seen that. And no, they didn't. The phrase "pull it" was used by Larry Silverstein in an interview after the attacks, in reference to getting the firefighters out of the building, because the firefighters on the ground thought the building was going to collapse, and there was no need to risk their lives to save the building.

The truthers now claim that "pull it" is a term used in controlled demolition, which CD workers have denied.

Just to be clear, do people believe this tower 7 thing was part of a larger plot also involving the other towers? Or is this more like: the government destroyed tower 7 (to prevent it from collapsing dangerously or something) and they won't admit it?

If it's the latter, then I don't think that's necessarily all that silly.

But if it's the former, I would like to hear your general ideas for why in the hell they'd bother? Whatever insane scheme (and here I'm echoing the opinion of Noam Chomsky, who's not exactly on the Bush payroll) may have motivated the destruction of the first two towers, it seems like going for tower 7 is a little pointless (and would only increase the risk of detection, which would be catastrophic).

I mean, do they think anyone would have thought "Towers 1 and 2 were bad - but I won't (be OK with a crazy war/vote Republican/sign up for government brain monitoring) until Tower 7 falls. It's tower 7 that's really the make or break for me".

Also, if you really believe the government set the whole thing up - be sure not to vote Democrat. I mean, talk about comparative incompetence: the Bush administration can kill 1000s of powerful Americans without consequence - Clinton couldn't even get serviced in secret. They've come a long way since Nixon couldn't break and enter in a hotel.

Final post until theres another response.

Funny how in the controlled demolition videos, you hear the explosives going off, yet in the wtc7, you dont hear any???? Hence my statement above about a brand new explosive that makes no noise when exploding.... which, ofcourse.. doesn't exist.

The guy saying most of the fires were out is a flat out lie.

One last thing.. the footage at 1.36, of the tower collapsing, starts around 10 seconds after the collapse had started. I've posted these links before: here and here. I prefer the second one. Shows the the full collapse, and times it.

dbalsdon you are full of crap. I've watched the Larry Silversten interview and he is quite clearly refering to demolition.
CD guys use the phrase "pull it" all the time as euphemism for blow the shit out of it.

BULLSHIT!

WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from the collapse of the Towers. Also, the fires were NOT almost all out by the time of the collapse. In fact, they'd spread across multiple floors and were increasing. City engineers examined the structure a half-hour before it collapsed and said it was dangerously unstable. In the middle of the biggest rescue operation in New York history, they had the emergency personnel pull out of the area. Finally, seeing endless replays of building implosions on TV doesn't make you an expert on structural engineering any more than seeing the stars every night makes you an expert on astronomy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ralph-Schoenman-The-Category-of-Terror
You people think too much-Does the building look, smell,taste,sound,and feel like one that was demolished by implosion?.....Yes. Do buildings fall like this of their own accord after having been partially damaged by fire? Oh...this would be the first-
Finally....DOES the official story include the fact that the fucker was taken down by anyone???...wouldn't know, don't read Pulp Fiction....

go StukaFox go!!!

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

For anyone who hasn't read this please do. If you think it was a controlled implosion, but haven't seen

a) pictures of the damage caused by the first tower collapsing
b) pictures of fires burning unchecked for hours on several floors
c) the layout of the fuel storage system in building 7
d) the design of the cantilever girders that made up the 'transfer system'

then you have missed all of the important facts on this ridiculous topic. Choggie...thinking too much is not a charge I mind accepting, and also not one I would level in your direction.

Please, no matter what, there will still be moronic idiots that will believe that the government was the ones behind 9/11 and that it was all controlled demolitions blah blah blah. Nothing we can say, no evidence can we point to, nothing anywhere will make them change their minds because they've made them up: it was a vast conspiracy. The further you point to reports and using simple logic TheSofaKing, the further away they will go because they JUST KNOW in their hearts it was a government conspiracy!

The best thing to do is just ignore these people and let them live out their deluded little lives. Yes, I'm pretty harsh with my assessment of them...but I'm fucking sick of this nonsense.

Tenants of WTC7 / Business type/ Floors occupied / Square feet occupied

Salomon Smith Barney Financial Institutions GRND,1-6,13,18-46 1202900
Provident Financial Management Financial Institutions 7,13 9000
American Express Bank International Financial Institutions 7,8,13 106117
U.S. Secret Service Government 9,10 85343
Standard Chartered Bank Financial Institutions 10,13,26,27 111398
Securities & Exchange Commission Financial Institutions 11,12,13 106117
United States Equal Opportunity Commission Government 18 N/A
NAIC Securities Insurance 19 22500
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 19-21
First State Management Group, Inc Insurance 21 4000
Federal Home Loan Bank Financial Institutions 22 47490
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt Government 23 45815
Internal Revenue Service Regional Council Government 24,25 90430

From Wikipedia (so it's gotta be true!)

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][25]

"Does the building look, smell,taste,sound,and feel like one that was demolished by implosion?"

Look: maybe
smell + taste: never heard of anyone saying the building smelt/tasted like an implosion.. but, well, whatever way the tower collapsed, both would have the same result... lots of dust...
sound: now this is the one which lets your whole argument down.. do you hear any of the regular explosions you'd hear at a CD??? I sure as hell don't. And neither does anyone else.
Feel: do you mean like gut feeling????

I also don't remember the last time I saw a building burn for a couple of hours before being demolished. Fire and explosives don't really mix that well, and when they do, the explosive normally goes off.

Goofball_jones. You're right. The reason debunker skeep going on though, is out of the hope that soeone who's not convinced yet, might see our posts, and finally see reason.

Fade: No they don't, and no, he was referring to the firefighters. he did clarify that in a later interview, but, then again, I guess according to you, he was prob told by his NWO superiors to say that huh?

Goofball_jones

I would never attempt to change the minds of your typical conspiracy nutjob. That 1% of society is beyond hope. But with this particular "theory" there is something like 30% of people who believe it. For the sake of humanity I have to believe a good chunk of those people just haven't read all the evidence on the matter, and would change their minds if they did.

jurys' out....official story, believable.....conspiracy whack-jobs' doubts assuaged , unlikely....and now back to your regularly scheduled programming.....

Mmmm. the sweet sweet taste of cool-aid.

U, sorry Dbalsdon but you are wrong on both counts.

The very PBS documentary that features Silvertein making the "pull it" remark also features the CD engineers using the term to refer to the controlled demolition of wtc6

Unidentified construction worker 1: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

This is almost laughable.

We "truthers" are the "moronic idiots" who can see with our own eyes that a 47 story building suddenly collapses in a synchronized fashion straight to the ground - exactly the way that a rigged CD building does.

You "skeptics" are the "the smart ones" who can watch those videos and think it's a perfectly natural way for a building to collapse.

Wait. If that's an orange... Jews?!

Even the video these kooks use works against them. In the controlled demolition clips, the buildings seem to fall in the explained 1-2-3 segmentation seconds apart. The WTC looks to fall down all at once.

"Truthers" compose a second alternate history to facts and logic, behind liberal bolsheviks whose recent alternate history begins with the whopper that Bush "stole" the 2000 election.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

I heard moments before WTC7 came down, a semi truck pulled up and 35 members of the Skull & Bones society were seen leaving building 7 in a very ceremonious fashion complete with the purple robes and Nike shoe outfits.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8350603291379996071&q=wtc+7&total=1970&start=0&num=50&so=1&type=search&plindex=28

Quiet in here. Is everybody watching eric3579's vid there?

ITT we shut the fuck up, the government didn't do it.

Whew. That's good news. I was worried there for a minute.

I've made this comment several times, and I'll keep making it. After the Empire State Building was erected building commissions got worried about the impact of a building falling and damaging other buildings. IT IS UNIVERSAL BUILDING CODE that ANY structure over 3 stories in height to fall on itself to minimize damages and casualties to surrounding areas.

On top of that to you can look at the way the World Trade Center was constructed. They have a more ridged and reinforced outer support structure that acts like a shell. The inner structure is a bit more flexible and was designed with the intent of having the outer shell contain any collapse of the building. Why? Because they were going to be the largest buildings in New York City.

I'm an Architect, I've designed close to a hundred buildings now and I can tell you that structural engineers look at this kind of stuff and have noted it on plans they have reviewed. So the "towers falling straight down like in a controlled demolition." It's bullshit, it would have happened with or without government ninja-placed secret hidden explosives all over the building.

The reason these conspiracy theories don't make sense is because they hold no COMMON SENSE! They don't take into account that architects think about designing for disasters. Much less how the government could shut up so many people. Lets face it they couldn't keep Watergate, Lewinsky, or other scandals from surfacing. They couldn't keep this a secret if they wanted too. So all you nut-jobs that keep thinking the government is behind 9/11, try applying research and common sense in your reasoning and you'll find that it actually makes more sense then anything any wacko can spout out on his blog.

Again with the name-calling. Do you mind if I don't try to immediately reconcile what I see with what I'm told? Can I not decide, keep my mind open to any number of scenarios without without being defamed as a whacko, nutjob or whatever? That'd be great. Thanks.

^No not really

ha. Just seems that if I were to make up my mind about this, I'm going to have to completely ignore something that doesn't fit. As far as channels go, in my opinion "lies" is appropriate for both sides, "war on terror" certainly fits, but in my mind "mystery" would also apply nicely.

the government, or rather the CIA, WAS responsible for 9/11, just not as directly as all that.

Mink, to your point I think that some of this stuff is distracting to the "truther" movement. There are other, deeper, nefarious forces at work, we've had our dirty little fingers in other peoples pies forever. That being said, i've probably lurked a hundred 9/11 threads, and never participated until this one, because they all end the same. Everybody disregards half of the claims and calls the other fool. The only thing I know for sure is that I've been lied to before.

Edit: Okay, Not everybody disregard half the claims. Most ignore some and some ignore most.

I think the evidence is strong enough to warrant a new investigation. I don't believe in all the stories of the "truthers", as people like to spitefully call them, such as the planes being remote control guided missiles, etc. Though, there are staggering inconsistencies with the mainstream beliefs of 911, so I think a new investigation could bring some misconceptions to light and bury others. What's the harm in that?

I've got to say, though, it's not smart to be so closed minded. It's easy to cling blindly to popular belief and spitefully call those who question popular notions the "fringe of society", or worse, "nutcases". I see plenty of compelling arguments for questioning events from 911, and I don't consider myself a nutcase, and I'm certainly someone who has spent copious amounts of hours doing research on the whole thing. I'm not a structural engineer or a pilot or a ballistics expert, but I don't feel I have to be one to question theories that aren't believable by my own comprehension and reason.

To me, the ones who are crazy are the ones who substitute arrogance for intelligence.

I see you Rougy...

I would appreciate it if one of the "truthers" would lay out a general summary of what they think happened that day and why.

For example - for those pointing to the BBC video - do you think their entire staff was "in on it"? Every cameraman? Every tech guy? And nobody talked? And, after all that careful orchestration, they didn't wait until the tower fell before they started? What? It doesn't even pass the vaguest, most forgiving laugh test. I don't know what the explanation is (though I can imagine several without straining credulity) - but the idea that the government told them about it before is, by itself, ridiculous.

I mean, why would anyone want them to be "in on it" in the first place? Why not just let them report on it naturally after the building falls down? What would be the point? If they can be made to report on a building that hasn't fallen yet, certainly they could be trusted to "go with the official story" after the building falls.

People are discussing this like there's two scenarios here and we're evaluating facts to decide which is right. But the alternative "truthy" scenario is never fleshed out - there's nothing to evaluate. I've seen a lot of people make lists of 100 things that they think are suspicious, but they never seem to write up an explanation that resolves all (or even many of) those 100 things. Often those 100 things themselves point to wildly different scenarios.

Write up a scenario that fits the facts better than the "official" story - tell me how many new "suspicious coincidences" arise and how many "unanswered questions" there are with the new theory.

I'm not sure if there are any "truthers" here on videosift. Maybe you should go look on myspace or somewhere else, though I can give you some interesting links that may help to send you in the right direction for research that you should do on your own. Try this one and this one is really awesome, though it touches on a lot more than just 911. They're both pretty long.

I'm not saying everything you'll find will be accurate or correct, so you'll have to make discerning judgment calls along the way. I've seen some videos that show birds flying around WTC 1,2 & 7, and the YouTube poster was trying to insinuate that the birds were remote controlled demolition aircrafts or something like that. Either way, it was certainly doubtful and completely unreasonable, in my opinion. Still, once you've sifted through the muck and mire, you should be able to find some tidbits of information that should raise an eyebrow or two.

^I agree, sifters tend to be a pretty rational and intelligent bunch. I think a little more true skepticism is called for. Remember the Maine, the Thornton Affair, the Reichstag fire, the USS Pueblo, the Gulf on Tonkin and on and on. Those events give me the right to be skeptical.

Don't a lot of Truthy's refer to themselves as Truthers? I didn't realize it was a derogatory term.

No I think it's a label they wear with honor. The derogatory is "Troofer", or some reference to tinfoil. Remember folks, shiny side out!

"Much less how the government could shut up so many people. Lets face it they couldn't keep Watergate, Lewinsky, or other scandals from surfacing."

That's a logical fallacy and utter bull. The government can and does keep big, very important secrets.

It's obvious that the building was rigged.

Every reference to the NIST is as useful as referring to the Warren Commission report on the JFK assasination.

The point of the "official" investigation was not to uncover the truth: it was to highlight evidence that supported the official excuse, and suppress or ignore any evidence that challenged it.

(Hello MyCroft - sexy as ever, I see)

The government does stuff that can be considered unethical. I mean, I was part of the Navy, and we were given orders to throw garbage over the side of the ship. Now, it's okay to jettison garbage after 50 miles from the coast, but we'd certainly do it closer in. Also, you're not supposed to throw the plastic garbage bags, but we'd do it anyway. What's worse, we were given orders to throw five gallon buckets of paint over the side of the ship and told to keep an eye out for Greenpeace.

What does that have to do with 911? Nothing. I just wanted everyone to know about my experiences with gross governmental negligence. So, yeah... anyway...

I think people tend to consider the government to be this well oiled machine. It's a morass. It's a bureaucracy. To think the government could pull off a multi-faceted operation on our own soil with operatives who were cameramen and reporters is ludicrous. Though, there's good reason to believe there are other reasons for the explanations given for 911. And, when you hear the personal accounts of people in the building speaking about the security lapse days before the attacks, maybe you'll consider this whole attack thing in a different light. It's important to consider them instead of ignoring them.

"It's obvious that the building was rigged."

When people like Rosie started pointing out the unexplained portions of the events of 9/11, I was intrigued. There is nothing I would put past this administration. And at the time, it wasn't easy to find people giving logial explanations for how WTC7 fell. Now, however, there are a lot of good solid reasonable answers to the questions that arose, including the baselesness of some of the questions in the first place. The timing of the collapses, the extent of the fires, the structural saftey measures in place... they all point to a collapse that resembles a controlled demolition, but isn't. Conspiculously absent from the video above is the collapse of the East Penthouse. Missing points like that are all over the place in the assertions of the "truthers".

It's FAR from obvious that anything was rigged, and I have seen absolutly no evidence of a massive conspiracy, except for the fact that one would be necessary for it to have been planned.

The burden of proof is now squarely on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists, and I eagerly await some reasonable evidence.

melting point of steel, grade 430 - 2650 degrees, Fahrenheit
max burning point of jet fuel - 980 °C (1796 °F)
diesel fuel and jet fuel are very similar.



hmmm, granted fuel could weaken the steel a little bit, but considering how many TONS of concrete surround the beams, that would soften it a little bit, its going to take more than that. Keep in mind i listed MAX temperature for the fuel. open air (or less air than would be in a building) is allot lower.

Besides, what started these fires in building 7? Anyone ever try to light diesel on fire? its a pain in the ass. a random fire coincidently making its way to a fuel tank isn't going to be easy work to ignite that shit.

I am not sure I understand your point. Can you say it again?

The autoignition point, the point at which a fuel will spontaneously combust even without the presence of a spark, stands at around 410°F for diesel. It's even lower if the fuel is under pressure. Building 7 was apparently equipped with an above-ground diesel storage system, which was highly unusual. The NYFD even told the mayor's office that in the event of a fire, the storage system could result in a catastrophic explosion that would bring down the whole building. The NY Times ran a whole article about it... 6 years ago, but apparently the conspiracy theory buffs missed it. Check it out:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63

And particularly this article, which gives a quite reasonable explanation why the building went all at once:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DD1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B63

What I can't stand about the whole conspiracy theory thing are the people who are neither engineers nor firefighters claiming that "a building can't collapse like that due to a fire." And they know this how? Because someone on the Internet told them. That in itself should be enough to dismiss their claims. Please find me the "truthers" who are actual NYFD members that were there that day and perhaps some engineers that have solid experience designing and/or demolishing these types of buildings and then maybe I'll be willing to listen what these people have to say.

Ok, I just wached Improbable Collapse, and I must say it is much more compelling than the above video. It certainly cherry-picks some evidence, but it presents some points I have not seen explained by debunkers.

One thing I will definitely give the "truthers", the media blackout of WTC7 is ridiculous. I didn't even know there was a third skyscraper collapse that day until years later.

I guess I'm not done studying this subject.

Notice how all these clips always show the same edited segment of the WTC7 collapse, from the same convenient location? That's because:
* The building was very much on fire at that time.
* As noted above, there was no detonation or explosion.
* It actually took 30 seconds for the building to collapse.
* It actually spread debris over 150 meters.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile?

While we're at it, here's some actually researched information on the subject (as opposed to edited clips of footage found on Youtube):
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
(This is not the first time these two websites are brought up on Videosift. Apparently some are much more comfortable with having an opinion than with having the actual facts)

The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it. And then you'll have to start all over again. With them, everything is about beliefs and dogma, nothing is about facts. Reminds you of another kind of people? That's right, they're behaving just like creationists.

After the Empire State Building was erected building commissions got worried about the impact of a building falling and damaging other buildings. IT IS UNIVERSAL BUILDING CODE that ANY structure over 3 stories in height to fall on itself to minimize damages and casualties to surrounding areas.


Gordon you are full of shit! Here is post 2004 NYC building code. I cannot find a copy of the pre-2000 building code. I also am not sure there is even a "Universal Building Code" that would have secret non-NYC building code statues applying to "falling into footprint".
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/reference/code_internet.shtml

If you want to private message me your BSArch or Architect license number I would be glad to do the vetting, but otherwise I still maintain you are full of shit.

the government has admitted lying to the public in the past, and carrying out false flag operations, and generally fucking over the population in pursuit of power and money. also gross incompetence has been uncovered, such as allowing passenger jets to fly into NYC without F-16s toasting them first. But then.. they did happen to plan a confusing exercise on the same day didn't they... hmmm.

if you think 9/11 skeptics are "cranks" or "idiots" then i really don't understand you. you SHOULD be skeptical, it's the only patriotic thing to do. Hold the government to account. Notice the fact that they make bullshit investigations with no incentive to find the truth. That's called cover up.

however, skepticism isn't proof, and i still don't see a lot of convincing proof that the buildings were rigged.

the mid east conflict is, and has been, rigged for decades, nay centuries, but that's another matter.

Joedirt: I will not give you my AIA number, especially not over a internet forum. However I highly suggest that you find a structural engineer who's had experience with large buildings. Your referencing a New York building code. Regrettably there isn't a public website for UBC but most local libraries should have code books. Otherwise any architect firm or structural consultant should have a set of code books.

And the WTC towers were designed to collapse straight down in the event of a disaster.

P.S. my name is Gorgon not Gordon.

Come on, Gordon, get with the program, dude! Just kidding. I'm just starting shit.

Jeez, everyone is getting pissed about this. Let's slow our roll, shall we? It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with all this. We're not going to solve anything in this little video message board. I commend MaxWilder for taking the first step in doing research, and, although, I'm pretty sure his point-of-view won't be changed, at least he's trying and he's listening. That's huge.

And, to you, TomStall, I'm a bit disappointed by your comment above because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. I'm not altogether sure your comment is true when you write, "The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it". Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

I don't care enough to convince you to go dig up all the research or expert's names that oppose the conventional perspective of 911, but they're there. All you have to do is scratch the surface, and please understand you will see a lot (and I mean A LOT) of unlikely and implausible perspectives of 911 (such as the remote control birds I spoke of earlier). Those are par for the course whenever a government's theories are questioned.

It's a good thing this video of the WTC7 collapse includes audio. We can clearly identify the series of loud explosions that knock out the primary supports and cause the implosion... Oh, what's that you say? There were no such explosions recorded or heard by people who were there that day? Don't be so stupid. It's just because the government has created secret new silent bombs. (I believe they figured it out after watching an episode of MacGyver.)

This was clearly a controlled demolition by the government. All you people with common sense are so full of shit!!! Don't you understand that Bush wanted to invade Iraq no matter what the cost?! It's indisputable that Al Qaeda hijackers took over the planes and flew them into various places (oh, but not the Pentagon of course; that was a military missile fired from a submarine or satellite or something), but that wouldn't have been enough cause to invade another country. (We also musn't forget that those hijackers were all being trained and financially supported by Bush, of course.)

Instead of counting on the airliner attacks being enough reason to eventually wage war, the Bush administration had fantastic enough insight and just knew that unless a small, unimportant building near the Twin Towers also collapsed, we wouldn't have just cause.

So as soon as Bush took office, he had his secret engineers who work at Area 51 develop new powerful bombs based on alien technology that could be placed inside a building's support columns without anyone able to see them and then later explode without making any sound whatsoever.

Zomg, it's like so totally obvious, you dumb L4m3rz!

Gay.

lol lucky.

Hey Tom, I was looking at, http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile?
which you mention in your post. I have one question. Are you fucking serious? Did you read it? Out of all the material out there you chose this to reference. Is it just me? Anyhow, from my recollection there are videos with many witnesses (NYFD included) talking about the explosions/detonations they heard, and where is the info for the 30 second collapse? If your interested in the science, here you go.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

The way I see it is,the wacky conspiray theory, is the one that our government has you believing.

believing the official story is just insane. cite me one time in history where the official story has been the honest truth.

having said that, holographic missiles probably didn't hit the pentagon.

don't you see the truth is in the middle of the two extremes they want you to fight about.

To dbalsdon and those who upvoted his comments (StukaFox,TheSofaKing,gorgonheap,Marinegunrock,Japr).

Your first comment:
>I guess destroying support beams, drilling holes into the ones that remain, and then sneaking loads of a top secret new explosives(that doesn't make any noise when they go off) into the building, without ANYONE noticing, is a "perfectly logical" explanation isn't it??<

Its obvious that an upvote for this comment has nothing to do with evidence or facts and is completely pointless, but you all thought it worthy of your upvote. I can only say its going to be difficult to take any of your comments seriously. There are dozens if not hundreds of individuals that were told to evacuate the area around WTC 7 hours before the building fell. Many said they were told the building was going to be blown up,some were told it was going to be pulled and others were told it was in danger of collapsing. Many news outlets reported the collapse of the building before the collapse actually occurred.

second comment:
>K. Just seen that. And no, they didn't. The phrase "pull it" was used by Larry Silverstein in an interview after the attacks, in reference to getting the firefighters out of the building, because the firefighters on the ground thought the building was going to collapse, and there was no need to risk their lives to save the building.
The truthers now claim that "pull it" is a term used in controlled demolition, which CD workers have denied.<
Come on, do you really believe that "pull it" is a term that would mean to get people out of an area. Do a search and see if CD workers know and use that term. I found a few. Im sure if you would take the time to look you may also find them.

Wow, truthers is the name youve given the other side. Whats more important winning or the truth. This is no different then liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans. They take our money they send our friends and family to die for there selfish reasons and we sit here and argue amongst ourselves.

Im done.
Im gonna jump on my skate and go get coffee and a donut.

..and if you might want to try and figure out what the truth might be. Goto the link in my previous post

"donought" ...when a dosomething is to "kooky", grab a donought.

eric3579:
I have one question. Are you fucking serious? Did you read it? Out of all the material out there you chose this to reference. Is it just me?

Yes, I guess I am "fucking serious". Yes, I read it (and you didn't, see bellow). Yes I chose to reference it and...wait...what is you argument again ? Ho, that's right, you have none. You're just dismissing a source because you don't like it. Care to come up with an actual reason?


eric3579:
and where is the info for the 30 second collapse?

You ask me if I read it and you can't spot that sentence located *three lines* bellow the pictures I linked to? Can I ask you if you are "fucking serious", please? Here's the quote:

"The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in"

So the internal structure started to collapse 30 seconds before the building caved in. That's quite different from "Explosives sent the building down in 6.5 seconds tops".
Also thanks for your link which, again, shows you didn't read the websites I pointed to, as mister Jones's arguments are discussed at length there...

* * *

blankfist:
Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

A few points first:
* Being suspicious of a government who has in the past started things like the Phoenix Program or MK Ultra is completely understandable. I do not question that.
* The 911 Report is an unconvincing (I would say "incomplete") piece of work on some points. Namely if you ask me, the guys who wrote down that finding out where the terrorists funds came from was "not important" should be thrown down into a pit full of hungry talibans.

That being said:
The most vocal "Conspiracy Theorists", and more specifically those giving themselves names like "911 Truth Movement" do focus on stuff that is, frankly, preposterous. Imagine you are the government and DO cause the 9/11 attacks...why in hell would you, on top of that, sneak in several tons of explosives in buildings occupied by several tenth of thousands employees? Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of doing this? Seriously, why do it? And if you do, why make it a (supposedly) "clean" controlled demolition? Why hide the result and not say the terrorists placed the explosives too?
None of this makes sense, but still a few nutjobs broadcast long-debunked claims. Cellphones don't work in airplanes: Lies. Building free-falling into their own footprint: Lies. Signs of explosions and use of thermite during the collapse (erm, I thought thermite did not explode?): Lies. It's all been proven wrong, but they still repeat it. Each and every "evidence" I have looked at has been debunked, and none has been actually PROVED.
Again, if you have any "real research", with actual solid evidence, please provide it. I doubt you will, because if any hard evidence was found (and by hard I mean which cannot be refuted), here's what would happen:
* Governments hostile to the US would use it and put it under scrutinity.
* Neutral media (independent or foreign media) would report it.
* Eventually mainstream media would have to report it, if only to downplay it.
Do you see any of this happening?

Meanwhile, the real issues (like "where did the money come from", "how did the terrorists operate" or "why did the administration repeatedly ignore warnings from its allies prior to 9/11") remain unanswered. I guess they don't sell as many books.

I am not dismissing any and all dissent toward the official 911 explanation, but in regard to those making claims about "the 911 physics", I do stand by my statement and think it is them who are baseless: they're all talk and no proof.

"And the WTC towers were designed to collapse straight down in the event of a disaster."

I bet a source for that kind of information would be really easy to turn up.

I can't find any.

Tall buildings are designed to fall straight down?

That's odd, I thought they were built to stand forever.

what I want to know is why do people n both sides get so angry about belief? I mean, pardon me for being skeptical but doesn't it cut both ways? Aren't both sides exhibiting skepticism about the other side? Then why can't you have a decent conversation about it?

and BTW I downvoted because I think its a crappy video, not because I disbelieve the base idea. I'm willing to hear out truthers but I've seen far better examples and heard more compelling arguments.

simple physics... how else is it supposed to fall?
nothing's pushing it sideways, and it isn't stiff enough to stay in one piece past a certain angle of leaning, and the impact was not at the bottom. i have no idea why people expect it to fall any way except "straight down".

This is not Jenga.

What i don't understand is how the core disintegrated so completely, but the reason i don't understand that is probably because i am not a structural engineer. However, you can't rule out the possibility of a classified material being used by the government, they do have secret weapons you know, that's a fact.

So you're arguing about inconclusive bullshit, and meanwhile neither George Bush nor Tony Blair is in the Hague on trial for his life, for starting an illegal and catastrophic humanitarian disaster. So, guess what, they win.

Hmm. 23 for and 9 against. What does THAT mean?

it means i forgot to downvote. reasons of not wanting stupid shit to cloud the real issues.

"simple physics... how else is it supposed to fall?"

Mink, they lean over and fall to the side of the most damage.

The structural integrity of the steel and concrete floors below will significantly resist the fall of the upper part of a building.

And I don't think this is clouding the real issue at all. Finding out what really happende on 9/11 is the real issue.

they lean over to the side of the most damage? well yes, ABOVE the damage... which was high up... and, well, the top bit DID lean over, especially on the tower that was hit off centre.

as for the core below being destroyed, i dunno, but i have absolutely zero training in that. these were unique buildings so i guess they would do crazy shit.

the real issue is the millions that die in wars, for or against empires, while rich people get richer. 9/11 is just a paragraph in that story.

Let's say we prove 9/11 was an inside job, or in 70 years some documents get released or whatever. So what? Plenty of government conspiracies have been admitted previously, and people seem to continue trusting the government when it says "time for war" ... which is ALL the time.

arguing about structural engineering with a load of unqualified people is a waste of time. I even asked an architect and he said "i dunno, you need to ask a structural engineer who knows the plans of that building very very well"

so...

let's discuss something we are qualified to discuss... War is bad, dollar is fucked, oil is bad, illegal invasions are bad, war criminals need to be brought to justice, etc etc. Don't add fuel to the apologist fire by quibbling over how the towers came down.

Government fucked up the mid east, mid east guys fucked up the twin towers, it's not a conspiracy it's called Empire.

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Operation-Northwoods-Plot-to-kill-americans-then-blame-Cuba

oopss, wrong thread :-)

I just LOVE people who state as fact things like 'There's no way a building like that would fall like that without explosives' and 'The WTCs just wouldn't have fallen like that because the fire wasn't hot enough', as if they actually KNOW anything on the subject, and aren't just repeating hearsay and complete lack of knowledge.

When having a quick run through wiki articles like this and the like I have to go with ACTUAL ENGINEERS on this one, and Gorgonheap above... Just stop for a second and try and logically work out the probability of your conspiracy theory being true... then work out the probability of what we ACTUALLY saw being true... then think about a little thing called Occam's razor

What we saw:Two Aeroplanes hitting the twin towers (pretty unbelievable in itself, but it HAPPENED)...
Simple explanation of why the towers fell down? Two F*CKING BIG planes ploughed into them, they were NOT designed to have 747s plough into them.
Conspiracy theory? "Two planes ploughed into them AND previously explosives were planted AND structures weakened AND no one noticed"

I'm going to go with the first one... just me.

spoco2-

For what it's worth, we're talking about wtc7 which was not hit by said "F*ing Big plane". The official story is that there was a huge amount of damage to the front of wtc7 and reports of massive fires. Both of these claims are unsubstantiated by photographs from the day.

“It looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolitions Contractors in Doylestown, Pa.

“If there’s any good thing about this it’ that the towers tended not to weaken to one side, “said Taylor. “They could have tipped onto the other buildings…”
The collapse of the WTC Towers mirrored the strategy use by demolitions experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but on several consecutive floors..the explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors ion a snowballing effect.
It cascaded down like an implosion” Says Taylor.

-New Scientist, 12 Sept. 2001


Analysis of dust samples
heavy Metals
Murcury
Asbestos
the cocktail was extremely alkaline +/-15)


The government (EPA) assured no health risks-(falsehoods, lies)
The NIST ruled out controlled demo as a possibility and DID NOT INVESTIGAT based on this premise....

7 yrs later, and nobody gives a fiddlers fuck enough to re-open the case and leave it to public scrutiny??? Even if we could, too late to prove anything based on evidence, which has all nut been conveniently destroyed.

People are still dying from the toxins they breathed in that day.

returned to this post to see hwo chime in-
As always, JAPR showing the ass.....

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by lucky760.

*findthumb

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.